As the Florida primary election results pour in, I have to wonder how much positive, pro-conservative messaging could have been generated with the $18M that Mitt Romney just spent on character assassination. In the midst of national debts and credit downgrades, there is worldwide civil unrest. From the riots in Greece, through the flash mobs in the UK, and all the way to the Oakland City Hall Occupiers, there are people who realize that one trillion dollars doesn’t go very far these days. Purity is the goal, but reality is the harsh equalizer. While the Tea Party is engaging in the political process and working on policy, the Occupiers are sending a parallel message to elites in both political establishments. The ruling class is on its way out.

When I joined the Tea Party in 2009, I was a purist. Demanding fiscal responsibility and accountability was just on the surface. I also wanted elected officials to represent the people with strong positions on national security and limited government. Like many, reality settled in after the 2010 elections. A mass wave of big conservative talkers and campaigns that insisted on Tea Party principles fooled many. Unfortunately, many of these candidates did not have an actual record to validate their claims, and their maiden voyages in politics were not particularly impressive. Many grassroots activists who helped these candidates get elected in the 2010 elections are now recruiting their replacements.

During the 2011 legislative session of the Texas Legislature, my idealism was infused with a dose of realism. As a member of the Texas Tea Party Caucus Advisory Board, I learned more than a little about how the system works. Money is power, and it rules the political elites. The leadership is handpicked, and laws are written accordingly. The “Good ol’ Boy Network” isn’t just something you see in the big Hollywood films. Even the reformers walked on eggshells, wary of shaking up the status quo. Those who attempted to challenge the ruling class became victims of backlash and threats of formidable challengers in the primaries. This is why the rise of Newt Gingrich as the choice of many conservative grassroots is a sight for my very sore — but now more open — eyes.

The mainstream media, including the “fair and balanced” cable news networks, have been telling Republicans that Mitt Romney will be the next nominee for president. They have been trying to convince conservatives that the guy who lost to the guy who lost to Obama is the right guy for us in 2012. What conservative grassroots are saying to the media and to the party is that it’s not “Mitt’s turn” — it’s the people’s turn. If Speaker Gingrich wins or loses the nomination, the people will have had their say. The mere fact that Mitt Romney has been running for president for at least five years, and has still found it necessary to spend a fortune tearing down other candidates to prop himself up, is reflective of his inability to win honestly and exposes his lack of substance on the issues. And now that all of his negative ads have been proven to be false, what will he have moving forward? Jimmy Carter was a successful business man, and from what I’m told, he did a number on the economy.

Are you sure Newt would win a debate against Obama? He didn’t always win against Romney. And Obama is not going to agree to 7 Lincoln-Douglas style debates with Newt. Are you sure we should vote for Newt based on that?

“He didn’t always win against Romney.” Have you ever heard of give and take? I’ll let you win this point, but I need to win the next, etc. It’s a game that both sides play, and against each other, also.

The reason Newt didn’t do well in the last debate was very clear to someone who watched all the debates and isn’t suffering from memory loss.It isn’t that Santorum or Romney became better as some have said. It’s because they copied Gingrich. The fact that Gingrich had to answer his own answers with an answer was very apparent and if you look at it that way was quite an achievement. I know Blitz is an idiot but someone on his team was aware from the previous debate how much Santorum and Romney were following Newt’s lead with their answers and Blitz made sure he went to either Santorum or Romney first with the questions so Newt had to try and answer his own answers from previous debates. It was very clever I might add and worked to their advantage but it was a charade.

Romney did spend a lot of money in Florida, it has to be done in that state, but he only outspent our mathematically challenged Newt by 2.5 to 1 and he started spending there three months ago (because he has been planning ahead, a great quality in a future President). The assertion that Newt will beat Obama in a debate and Romney will lose in a debate to Obama is ridiculous. Romney just got through handing Newt his butt in two debates last week. The assertion that Newt understands us better is equally absurd. Newt has spent almost his entire adult life in Washington politics, either as a Congressman or as a political consultant, while Romney has earned his own fortune in the same marketplace the rest of us have been living in. If you don’t like that Romney is rich, maybe you should ask yourself what your own economic dreams have been. Offering extra adverbs in speeches does not equate with the production of anything useful in my book. Most of us have toiled at producing something of value. So don’t feed me this “man of the people” stuff. By that standard, Obama is a man of the people. This article is pretty shallow, in my opinion.

Jim, there is a big difference between finance and industry. Finance is no under the same physical constraints and can be deceiving. Like Obama, Romney is a “pig in a poke.” Like Obamacare we won’t know what we have till after he is in the White House.

I understand the difference between the nature of industry and finance. I also understand that industry and finance are co-dependent. Industry usually needs lots of advance money(capital) for improvements or expansions and most times just seed money for a start up. Finance has fiduciary responsibilities to try to get a return on the money they promise to venture capitalists in exchange for the risk those capitalists are taking in financing the capital improvements of industry. Assessing and selling these risks is just as valuable an effort as the improved quantity or quality of goods and services that you and I should expect from the industries who borrow money. Wealth comes in several forms, not the least of which is capital, and if that capital is wisely spent, the benefit to the whole economy is enormous. Conversely, unwise use of capital can be very damaging and we need good financial enterprises as much as we need good industrial enterprises. Which is more important, who knows. But do not insinuate that Romney’s money was earned in a dirty way. You can bet that every successful business is selling their risk to venture capitalists. Most industrial producers don’t know much about finance, but they do know a lot about whether they can produce something better or more efficiently if they just have an infusion of capital. Venture capitalists know a lot about risk taking, but need producers to show them the best risks to take. So, all of us do whatever is our own self interest and that is how any of us get to do what we are best at doing. That is economic freedom and that is not what we have when the government steps in and tries to decide for everyone the value of our contributions. That said, I have never had the expertise to be a venture capitalist and I also don’t have the expertise to be an airline pilot, nor do I have the expertise to decide which expert deserves more of my respect.

Bain Company is Romney’s achilles heel in the general election, NOT his strength.

Study up on it… you can be sure Obama and liberal media will. In fact some people think they already have, and are holding it for the big guns in Nov. Might be true. The MSM unleashed on Bachmann (Newsweek pic et al), slandered Cain (unsubstantiated attacks) and tried to take Newt out with the ABC ex-wife interview. Romney remains unscathed by Obama’s media powerhouse. Why?

This link below goes to an interview with a Venture Capitalist about Bain.

There is no problem for Mitt from his days at Bain Capital. There is only left wing socialists trying to smear a good man in order to hang on to their collectivist tribal dreams. This is politics. There is not one candidate we could offer who would not be subjected to the same collectivist claptrap. It is time to fight these backward thinking regressives. “Beam me up, Scotty….”

In 1967, when I was much younger, I got the ultimate object-lesson in moderation when George Romney wet his pants at the sound of the first shots in Detroit. He would’ve had to improve 1000% to reach the level of pathetic. If Mitt is, in fact, any relation, nobody should want him within a mile of the White House. Anybody who hasn’t figured moderates out yet is a moron. Moderates are people who hate conservatives, but not as much as Leftists. Senior Juan McCain scorched the earth around conservatives in ’08 and then bastinadoed a speaker who pronounced O’bwana’s middle name. Yes, and his campaign got kinder and gentler after that. Romney will do exactly the same this year. And he will never repeal Obama-Care. So why should any conservative support Romney? With the Mitt, we’ll get the same program as O’bwana (with a GOP House), but won’t be able to run a Republican against Romney in ’16 to undo it all (same problem as with Bush II in ’04, him trying to justify a half-assed war with The Religion of Peace, yet). Reagan was wrong about a lot of things — usually because he was a Hollywood ding-dong who had no clue that you do not defeat your enemies just before the final credits roll, but have to annihilate them in real life, sometimes up to your knees in blood. They talk about winning the Cold War, but have you noticed Russia is still around; still giving us trouble? Ditto North Korea and Nicaraugua. When you get ‘em down you have to make sure they stay down, as in dirt-blanket time. Coolidge hounded all the fired Boston cops across the US, making sure they did not get hired anywhere by anybody. Reagan allowed many fired AT controllers to be hired for other govt jobs, much less do time in Club Fed. Guess Ronnie never got the translation for coup de grace. No loser ultimately bigger than the guy who can’t put his opponents away for good.

I was around then too, Jacobite, and I disagree with your version of events then. But even if what you say about Mitt’s father has some truth to it, how does it follow that Mitt has the same personality as his father? This is a completely baseless attack on Mitt Romney’s character. Don’t answer the previous questions. They all have obvious answers. I am more interested in why you posted something like this.

Gingrich, unfortunately, is a lover of big, powerful government and an opportunist on the issues. If one is against insiderism and crony capitalism, the last thing you should do is attack Romney for his success at Bain Capital, the one unequivocally good thing Romney has actually accomplished. The last thing you should do, as Newt did, is support Obamacare in deference to his health insurance company clients. The last thing you should do is sign up with the corrupt smear campaigns of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac against both free-market and good-government types who struggled to rein them in before it was too late. The last thing you should do is try to shame conservative opponents of the Medicare Part D fiscal disaster.

I enjoy Newt as a thinker and provocateur, and I have less than a scintilla of trust in Romney’s adherence to any kind of principle, but there is no philosophical case that Newt is better from a Tea Party perspective than Romney. Given Newt’s manifest deficiencies in terms of executive temperament and ability to woo independent voters, his inevitable demise in the race is therefore not to be greatly regretted. Limited government advocates will have to continue and even increase their efforts in Congress, the media (old and new), and possibly on the streets once more no matter who is elected president this year.

Please describe in detail how Gingrich ever decreased the size of the civilian government. At best, he slightly slowed the growth. During the 90′s the military was halved but other spending and civilian federal employment more than made up for those cuts.

no, JL, Newt has NOT been that person. Govt has done nothing but grow irrespective of who controls Congress or the WH. The only differences might be in the rate of the growth and the specific agencies that grow. Newt is a statist through and through, a believer in the power of big govt, as long as it’s done his way. That makes him no different from Obama in terms of substance.

Santorum is even worse. Neither is a conservative and maybe Romney’s not, either, but I don’t hear him calling for a new govt program for every issue or for govt to regulate one’s private behavior. The most conservative guy in the mix is Paul but both the Repub and conservative media establishments have largely succeeded in painting him as a caricature because he refuses to bomb Iran just for fun.

I learned a lot about Newt from watching his speeches. The entire plan for how the American people can team up and restore our country to the Constitution is contained in these speeches. Newt also talks about American history and recent events, and election strategy. He predicts the wins of 2010, for example, and tells u exactly how we can win in 2012. I recommend starting with “2012: VICTORY OR DEATH” — one of the most interesting of the speeches. Then, I would say, “STRONG AMERICA NOW.” http://newtgingrich360.com/profiles/blogs/2012-victory-or-death-newt-s-speeches-links-to-17-speeches

So many of the criticisms of Newt, it’s clear to me people don’t know enough
yet.

This election, restoring our country, is the chance of a lifetime. Newt’s entire plan is based upon the awakening of the American People to our genius and energy.

The goal is to restore the government to the limits written in the Constitution and send the rest of the power the Elites have grabbed back to individuals and our local hometowns and states.

Find out for yourself. Make up your own mind. The internet makes you incredibly powerful.

Nicely said, Katrina, but florida has spoken and nearly 50% of republicans there punched their chads for the guy who spent 17 million to carpet bomb the airwaves with negative ads against the most consequential conservative politician since RR. It probably wouldn’t have been much different for Reagan himself. The thugs have learned a lot about negative campaigning since 1980. It’s a science now. They would have mocked his slow speech and would have found people to smear him from 30 years in the past. Chances are RR said some unconservative things now and again, and those are what would have been pounded into the brains of Floridians around the clock.

How could I when pocket pravda turns up the decibels to 160 if Newt so much as burps. He better not mumble in his sleep because they probably have his rooms bugged, looking for something else to shout about other than McMitt’s lifetime of liberalism and dirty business dealings.

Nope, the way I look at is that you got John Kerry and you got Ronald Reagan. John Kerry governed as a liberal in Massachusetts and invented Obamacare. RR balanced 4 budgets, reformed welfare, cut taxes, and started an economic boom.

Patriot, I think Ron Paul will make a comeback because these will be caucus states and, while Dr Paul’s constituency is too small to win this nomination, he is well organized and has followers will actually go to their respective precinct caucuses and be vocal in support of him. This will result in Dr Paul scoring more convention delegates than his polling percentages would likely get him in those states. That is what I meant by a comeback.

RR never reformed welfare or balanced budgets; those things happened in the 90s with a Repub Congress and Clinton. Reagan did cut income tax rates and the 80s were a boom. Newt, by the way, was neither Reagan’s chief advisor nor the usherer of his policies. He is a political opportunist who glommed onto the Reagan legacy in a bid for reflected glory instead of focusing on the time when he was Speaker.

Actual government outlays exceeded proposed outlays i.e the Reagan budget, in 7 out of the 8 years of his presidency. He increased the national debt by approx. 2T. Reagan was great in many ways, but let’s present the facts accurately.

It probably wouldn’t have been much different for Reagan himself. The thugs have learned a lot about negative campaigning since 1980. It’s a science now. They would have mocked his slow speech and would have found people to smear him from 30 years in the past. Chances are RR said some unconservative things now and again, and those are what would have been pounded into the brains of Floridians around the clock.

You’re being overly glum.

The main problem with Newt is Newt and his most attractive feature is that he is not Mitt. A skilled conservative politician with less baggage than Newt would have destroyed Mitt the way that Rubio did Crist.

I’m still hoping that we can stop the white Obama but I’m focusing all my efforts on House and Senate races.

George Soros is a wildly successful capitalist. So is the firm of Goldman Sachs.

What I want to know is where are the testimonials to Bain’s success?

You would think there would be vides galore of businessmen in tears thanking McMitt for saving their businesses. There should be hangers filled with working people thanking McMitt for preserving their jobs.

Why don’t we have a flyer for each business that Bain “invested in” describing how Bain revised their strategies, tightened up the bottom line, restructured the work force, opened new markets, developed new products, rejuvinated existing product lines, brought in creative new management, found willing buyers for unneeded assets, and on an on.

There should be dozens of flyers describing all of the successes. After all, McMitt has been running for president for 5 years.

I guess the only real success was Bain’s 80% profits, eh? Oh, and the 100,000 jobs McMitt “created”. Staples, apparently, didn’t have much to do with it. McMitt takes the credit.

Did anybody buy Walmart stock in the early 70′s? If you did, you “created” millions of jobs. Pat yourself on the back.

Somebody invested a lot of capital in the Staples office supply business when they needed it. The beauty of our system is that, when everyone does what they can, nobody owes anyone a debt of gratitude. As soon as we buy into the idea that one legal occupation is morally superior to another, we pave the way for government interventionists to destroy whole industries while they make our economic value judgements for us.

Actually, what Romney did with Bain Co. can be argued as being immoral … at least unethical. I used to be in business and Bain’s business approach is NOT the way I would ever do business. It is NOT venture capitalism.

Here’s that link again to a discussion with a venture capitalist on Bain.

The show is Butler On Business. The man speaking was the chairman of the Texas Workforce Commission, former head of the Republican Party of Texas. He was in the venture capital business for 6 years after leaving the Reagan admin. He clearly explains why Romney is *not* a job creator, but that what Bain did actually killed jobs, and the difference between venture capital and leveraged buyout companies like Bain, Michael Milken, and Steve Schwartzman. It is not complicated and is easy to understand.” hat tip to Kari George at TRC

You know very little about my genetic makeup, proreason. Just as I know very little about yours. But I do see a big baby who is so afraid he will back a loser, that he has completely lost his courage. I don’t know whether that is genetic, but that is what I can tell about you. As for the moron, who follows you in this thread, I think he probably just works for Obama anyway.

Gingrich is not a limited government conservative; he is a big goverment politician. He was not asked to step down as Speaker because he was too conservative. We don’t need more beltway lobbyists in the Whitehouse. Marco Rubio is your best bet for a truly conservative president in the RR tradition.

While you are pushing Rubio you might remember that his parents were not citizens when he was born. This is the same reason Obama is not acceptable. Obama’s father was from Kenya. He was a British Citizen, not a US Citizen.
I like Rubio but we can’t have it both ways.
Go Newt!

I believe that the Constitution does not tell us that the parents of a natural born citizen must be citizens. There is some very good arguments that they must at least be legal immigrants before their offspring can be declared natural born citizens, but Rubio is a natural born citizen as things now stand. The idea is that my parentage cannot be restrictive on my inalienable rights in the country of my birth if that country be the guarantor of certain inalienable rights to its citizens.

As the Florida primary election results pour in, I have to wonder how much positive, pro-conservative messaging could have been generated with the $18M that Mitt Romney just spent on character assassination.

Are you serious? There was no character assassination. Gingrich is his own worst enemy and always has been. The fact of the matter is that his side was the one engaged in character assassination and was doing it even today.

What conservative grassroots are saying to the media and to the party is that it’s not “Mitt’s turn” — it’s the people’s turn. If Speaker Gingrich wins or loses the nomination, the people will have had their say.

Didn’t “the people” of Florida have their say? You can whine about the money spent all you want. Everybody voted the way they wanted to and Romney won an overwhelming victory. Romney won Florida not because it was “his turn” but because he worked hard and skillfully used his resources while Gingrich completely fell apart and couldn’t even beat Romney in the debates.

Mitt may yet end up winning the nomination, and that may be all he’s in the race to accomplish. Of the repubican field, you couldn’t choose a weaker candidate than Mitt with whom to oppose Obama. But Mitt’s well-moneyed campaign has proved devastating for the rest of the field; not by defeating his fellow republicans with better ideas but, in attacking their personal charactor and competence, forever destroying their viability as a candidate in future elections. Regardless of who wins the presidency in 2012, the republican establishment has sent a clear message to all future political aspirants: “If you dare to compete with OUR guy for the nomination, no matter how poor a choice he is to run against the democrat, then we will see to it that you never work in politics again!”

Nothing will change until people stop being so lazy as to believe what they see in a 30 second ad – even if they have it drummed into their brains non-stop over a period of months. With so much information readily available on the internet, there is no excuse for allowing yourself to be manipulated. If only people would remember how many have fought and died so that we have the freedoms we do. And just what is it THIS generation is passing on to our grandchildren? We should be ashamed!

What flabbergasts me is hearing Republicans, *conservative* Republicans complain about spending big money on advertising. That’s one of the things we should be voting *for* – someone who has the organizational ability to raise enough money to do a full national campaign TWICE, with the second being against Obama for all the marbles.

People say it’s bad that Romney has been running for 5 years. Umm, did you criticize REAGAN for that ? Can you take off your blinders long enough to see that Romney over 5 years has learned from his mistakes – do you remember in 2008 when he had to spend his own money on his campaign ?

Do you REALLY want a person who is incapable of organizing and funding a national campaign to go to Washington and try to fix the budget mess there ? REALLY ?

You are doing exactly what you accuse The Establishment of doing: assuming that all who don’t agree with you are gullible fools. But your own (ie, genric Tea Party) credibilty has been damaged because of some of the people you supported till another flavor was introduced. You believed candidates who said good things but had no record indicating they could achieve them. Is it any wonder that your support of Newt is not the final word on his suitability as candidate or president.

When his entire party turned against him as Speaker, there must have been reasons. Some who were there said it was because he was reneging on Contract With America measures that could have been maintained and that he was encouraging the use of earmarks. It was Newt who brought up the subpoenas for Supreme Court Justices, not Romney. Starting a term with a constitutional crisis is not the way many would go to win support for the spending cuts we need. And promising a moon colony by the end of his next term also seems a bit grandiose to people who are worried about our national debt. This is not to say that we shouldn’t reevaluate our space policy and set new goals, but Newt should have waited until he had put our finances on a better footing and then started a serious discussion about our goals in space. Newt loves to think in big terms, but he hasn’t shown the ability to prioritize and stick with those priorities. Many of us fear he is offering conservatively tinged promises to stop the rising of the seas.

Seems like people are spending more money these days trying to tear people down rather than telling people what they are for and what they will do once in office. Obama is the one that needs to get thrown out of office, NOT some other Republican who isn’t even IN office, such as Newt or Romney. They really should grow up and hammer Obama, rather than each other. The man with the best plan for guiding this country should win, not the one with the biggest bank account. I was kind of hoping that the Republican primaries would be a 6 month infomercial on why to throw Obama out of office and why the mainstream media is so biased towards Obama. I was wrong.

I was kind of hoping that the Republican primaries would be a 6 month infomercial on why to throw Obama out of office and why the mainstream media is so biased towards Obama. I was wrong.

How could the primaries possibly be anything but the candidates savaging each other? You’ll get your infomercial on why Obama should be thrown out of office as soon as Mitt is confirmed as the nominee, and not a moment before.

Ok, I give up!! Just what conservative qualities does Mitt have? He’s a liberal trying to sell himself to a conservative base. It doesn’t ring true which is why there is such great unease in the conservative base. He passed Romneycare which was the basis for Obamacare. That makes your body a slave to gov’ment. Some bureaucrat tells you what healthcare your’e allowed to have. Is this the way you want to live? As a drone to the state? Its no better than the serfs of old; maybe a little more polite.

What reforms does Mitt propose? After running for 5 years, why does he have such a tepid tax reform package? Why does he have to carpet bomb Newt in order to win? Just what does this guy stand for? Its the status quo, don’t rock the boat, the go along, to get along wing of the party.

What reforms does Mitt propose? After running for 5 years, why does he have such a tepid tax reform package? Why does he have to carpet bomb Newt in order to win? Just what does this guy stand for? Its the status quo, don’t rock the boat, the go along, to get along wing of the party.

Removing regulations that are inhibiting growth, liberating the American energy sector and eliminating waste and balancing the budget, for starters.

If Romney was a liberal he would have joined the Democrat Party decades ago. The media would have embraced him as a second Bill Clinton except even smarter and better educated, with private sector success and a man of real family values, not the lurid family values of Clinton or the fake family values of the hypocritical wing of the GOP.

Big difference between passing legislation and implementation of the law. Implementation was his job as governor. His veto pen was useless in a state with a veto proof majority party. Review what his other choices could have been before you pound him for decisions he had to make. I doubt he will have that set of problems as our President. Plus, you whine to much, also my opinion.

Ahhh. The Newtonian Implosion moves on to The Days of Whine and Ruses.

Newtrino lost women by 22 percent. He did what he always does. He made the issue about how erratic, unstable, petty, vindictive and undisciplined he can be…and got his brains beaten in.

He LOST the Space Coast.

He picked a “money fight” (negative ads) against a guy who could outspend him 60 to 1 (and only spent 10 to 1 to do it). Stupid. Reckless. Undisciplined.
Petty. Vindictive.

He acted like a child and he got spanked like a child.

He shamelessly pandered and it backfired. He made over the top accusations and got caught on them, hurling away credibility.

He doubled down on losing propositions…a)attacking the free market from the left; b)forcing Rubio to defend Romney…TWICE; c)mixing in insane Jurassic Park fantasies and sex in space trivialities…when serious problems face a sober nation, d)he continued the idiotic and unsupportable nonsense that the mythical “establishment” is ….doing some mythical thing…that has some mythical impact on his disastrous self-inflicted campaign blunders.

“But, but, but….Romney staaaarted iiiiiiiitttt!!!”, they whine.

“THEY are not for me, and I’M ALL ALONE …fighting against invisible rabbits and unicorns and other REPUBLICAN imaginary demons”, goes the ruse.

“He has more money than I do…and that’s…unfair….even Barack Obama says people with money made under capitalism are unfair….and I agreeeeeeeee!!!”

The Days of Whine and Ruses are in full bloom now. Just like Obama, it is somebody else’s “fault”. Just like Obama, capitalist success and money are the “evils” that must be eradicated by pandering, smear campaigns and whining about how “unfair” it all is.

Just like Obama, if the conservative press doesn’t fawn over him and his loser strategies…then they are “pravda”.

Maybe, just maybe…people are lukewarm at BEST on Romney…and have turned cold on Gingrich because they aren’t buying his assault on the free market, his incessant whining, his over the top negativity, his petty and vindictive streak, his smarmy pandering and his excursions into the bizarre fantasies of unserious and remote issues of near zero importance to the key issues of the day.

There is no tinfoil hat conspiracy by VOTERS….who have clearly tested and tried virtually EVERY non-Romney available…and found them wanting.

The signal is crystal clear. There is a marked dissatisfaction with Romney as the nominee. Has been since the beginning. Hasn’t changed one iota.

But Gingrich blew perhaps the best opportunity of all of them. By buying into and doubling down on the Days of Whine and Ruses.

Gingrich is nothing more than a spoiler now. Romney could run the table on him in several upcoming states. The Newtonian Implosion could drop to third…maybe fourth in some of those states.

He will never, ever be the “consensus” candidate at a brokered convention. Nor will Paul.

“Not Romney’s” now only have Santorum to back. Gingrich blew it. He was brand damaged coming into the race, he is more brand damaged now. And…he probably just ensured that Promney will be the nominee. Congratulations. If that was his intent all along, then maybe he is a genius.

Otherwise, we might just witness a first…an entire campaign staff walking out on a candidate not once in a single season…but twice.

The Newtonian Implosion, it ain’t pretty…but at least it’s destructive.

Well said! Obviously, he didn’t need a lot of money to make himself look ridiculous with the shameful pandering promising big government programs like a a moon base. I was not surprised he lost The Space Coast.

Last night, a guy posting on another thread had some good things to say about McRomney. It’s good to know the inventer of obamacare has someone for him instead of against everybody else.

cfleachers is different.

He is the guy who is against all the candidates, but really REALLY against the conservative ones.

My view this morning is that it’s time to take a harder look at Rick Santorum. He’s appears to be an honorable person, not a man whose political career is based on spending his fortune as a smear merchant.

I’m certainly a supporter of John Bolton, Bob McDonnell, and don’t see them as the “enemy”.

I don’t see a Karl Rove/Romney tinfoil hat conspiracy. I don’t believe there is some double secret probation “cabal” doing damage to Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich or John Huntsman’s campaigns that self-inflicted wounds didn’t do worse.

I have NEVER backed Romney. Ever. Not months ago when Newt’s entire campaign staff walked out on him.- For a while I took a hard look at Herman Cain…and SOMEBODY…I can’t quite remember who it might have been…was trashing Cain from every angle with such venom, it was remarkable.

Cain disappointed. It wasn’t some “establishment” destruction…certainly not according to the certain someone, who comes rather unhinged quite easily.

To suggest that I have said anything for months that wasn’t simply about the candidate’s ability to WIN AGAINST OBAMA as my primary qualifier/disqualifier…is simply a disprovable and unhinged lie.

Sour grapes by the Newtonian Implosion squad is to be expected. Lying, smearing, slander is to be expected. (I state here and now unequivocally that I have never denied Holocaust survivors any kosher meals).

If the time stamps are correct, I believe I was the first one to suggest that Newtrino drop out and let Santorum be the “not Romney” on these very pages.

Well, the train has left the station, and you all, TEA Party or not, have only got yourselves to blame.

Yes, you started TEA parties all over the country, and cudos for getting TEA party candidates into Congress in 2010.
Have you forgotten who campaigned for those candidates? It would seem so.

Did any of you stand up for Sarah Palin after the Gifford shooting? If you did, it must have been mouse-like, because none of it made it across the Atlantic to the UK. The smears and slurs did …

When the first hat was thrown into the candidates’ ring, you must have been so happy to get a TEA party candidate. Where is she now?

Why did none of you moaners even try and get Sarah Palin to run? Looks as if you fell for the insinuations of the LSM and the GOP establishment, that she was unelectable, never mind the early polls showing her to be the only one amongst the prospective candidates who would beat Obama.

So you fell at the first hurdle and let the Washington elites dictate to you as to who would play, and as to how you had to obey.

Moaning now as to what could have been or about what is, is useless.

But never mind! After all, Soros can see no difference between Obama and Romney, so whoever wins in November will please the money men. It’s they who matter, not you, who have let yourselves be steamrollered.

Well said, Katrina! Good to see you here as a Dallas TEA person myself!

Newt has done damage to himself by lack of discipline. This is a persistent fault of his to stray from the needed focus, and talk about Moon colonies, etc. Yet, he has the record of achievement on advancing conservative principles, and showed ability to resolve thorny problems while doing so.

Romney offers tepid and thin gruel to TEA and Constitutional restoration types. No meat! Those folks will vote for him against Obama, but have no reason to work for him. Thus, like McCain, he will have an enthusiasm gap. Conservative base undervote did McCain in, not a wonderful Obama campaign. McCain refused to fight for conservative principles and bare his knuckles to force the media to vet Obama. I fear Romney may be of the same inclination, but it looks like we’ll get the chance to find out the answer to that question. For better or for worse!

One thing Newt said last week that really caught my attention has caused me to rethink my attraction to Newt: In a news conference after the Florida debates, Newt said, “You cannot debate someone who is dishonest.” He was speaking of course about Romney.

Let’s disregard the fact that Ronaldus Magnus did so very effectively against Jimmy Carter with that simple phrase, “There you go again.” My immediate reaction was: We’ve watched Obama be utterly dishonest in so many speeches. There is every reason to believe he’ll be even more dishonest if/when it comes to a debate. If dishonesty in a debate neutralizes Newt then he he’ll fail miserably.

Newt is not a conservative. Don’t be fooled by the guy. He says whatever you want to hear and does not deliver. He would not win the main election and would not attract voters. Most women I know would not even vote. Unfortunately we are now stuck with Mitt. That means we need to stack the congress with conservatives.

Once again, I’ve confused the election with the Super Bowl playoffs. I’ve can prove my own wisdom and competence by simply picking the winner. It is much simpler with elections than the football; I just see who runs the best ads, who has the handsomest uniforms and who has the sexiest quarterback.

Unlike football, there is no need to judge the play of the teams, the determination and skill of the players or anything as mundane as all that. All those things are unimportant in the election.

Once the playoffs are over, then it will be time to pick the Super Bowl winner. The two teams with handsomest uniforms, best ads and sexiest quarterbacks will preen for my attention. Once again, actual performance, team skill and determination are not needed in the election; all I need do is pick the winner.

I was talking about this with a friend the other day and he was aghast at my approach. Don’t you care about who you elect? No said I, that’s not the purpose. I can be successful only if I pick the winner. Just look at who won in 2008. Did he have a successful record on the field? Did he have any skills at all?

What about the nation? What about our future? Don’t you care? You don’t understand, said I. My sexy quarterback in his handsome uniform will dazzle the entire world with his continence; hope and change will flow from every pore in his body. His edicts and proclamations will fill my soul with grace and joy.

THAT SOUNDS LIKE THE NUMBER OF PERSIANS NEEDED TO DESTROY THE SPARTONS WHO WERE BETRAYED BY FOX NEWS. FAIR AND IMPARTIAL NO MORE. O’REILLY STARTED IT.

THIS MORNING I SAW JOHN KERRY’S DOUBLE QUOTING THOMAS PAINE. THINK ABOUT THIS IF YOU HAD AN OPPONENT WHO SPENT FIFTEEN MILLION DOLLARS TO MAKE A FOOL OF YOU. WHO BOUGHT 13,000 ADDS IN YOUR STATE TO TELL LIES ABOUT YOU. THE MOST YOU COULD AFFORD TO FIGHT BACK WITH WAS 200 ADS. HOW SOON WOULD YOU PACK UP AND MOVE OR GO UNDERGROUND?

ROMNEY IS A BIG MONEY BOY HE TALKS TO POOR PEOPLE ON ELECTION DAYS. HE IS FROM THE HOME OF TED KENNEDY AND JOHN KERRY. FELLOW TRAVELERS OF THE MASSACHUSSETTS WAY. HIS MONEY STIFLED ALL THREE COMPETITORS.

ONE THING I LEARNED FROM THIS VOTE IS THERE IS A LARGE PERCENTAGE OF DEMO COMMOS IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY AND THEY ARE ALL ON THE TOP. I USED TO SAY WHEN YOU GET TO THE TOP IT’S ALL THE SAME PEOPLE. THE SAME MEDIA PEOPLE WHO BROUGHT DOWN HERMAN CAIN WITHOUT A TRIAL. WHERE DID THE BIMBOS GO MOMMY? MISSION ACCOMPLISHED? STOPPED NEWT THE GLADIATOR WITH A SHARP SPIKE IN THE KIDNEY.

FIFTEEN MILLION DOLLARS GETS YOU A 14 POINT ADVANTAGE. THAT’S A MILLION A POINT. THE TRAGIC NEWS IS YOUR VOTE IS WORTHLESS. PAC MONEY IS EVERYTHING. JIM WHITE OWL MEET JIM CROW. THE MEDIA ESPECIALLY FOX WHO I HAVE LOST MUCH CONFIDENCE IN WILL TELL YOU THAT GINGRICH CAN’T WIN BECAUSE HE DOES NOT HAVE BIG MONEY. NEITHER DOES SANTORUM OR RON PAUL. SO WHEN YOU TAKE YOUR GRANDCHILDREN BY THE HAND AND SHOW THEM THE STATUE OF LIBERTY. YOU CAN PROUDLY SAY. KIDS ANYBODY CAN BE PRESIDENT OF THIS COUNTRY IF YOU HAVE A BILLION DOLLARS. THE DREAM IS DEAD. RUN ALONG NOW.

THE ENTIRE MEDIA LED BY FOX WAS IN THE BAG FOR OBAMA ROMNEY. TAKE A GOOD LOOK AT ROMNEY. HE WENT WICKED AT THE LAST MOMENT TO FINISH OFF GINGRICH. HE WILL TELL YOU HIS HANDS WERE TIED LIKE PONTIUS PILATE AND HAS NO CONTROL OVER THE PAC GROUPS.
HE WILL TELL YOU ALL HIS INVESTMENTS ARE IN A BLIND TRUST BUT HE HAS A SEEING EYE DOG WHO CAN TEXT. YOU BOUGHT IT. BUT NEWT TOOK FANNIE MAY MONEY TOTALLING 1.5 MILLION OVER HOW MANY YEARS? THEY LEFT THAT OUT. WHEN NEWT GOT FINISHED PAYING HIS HELP HOW MUCH WAS HIS TO KEEP? THEY LEFT THAT OUT. I THOUGHT HE KEPT IT ALL. WHEN JAIMIE GAERILICK WHO SAT ON THE 911 COVER UP COMMISSION WAS WORKING FOR DNC CONTROLLED FREDDY FANNY SHE EARNED 6.5 MILLION. I FORGOT DEMO COMMOS ARE WITHOUT SIN.

WELL NEWT HAD THREE WIVES IN A COUNTRY WITH A 50% DIVORCE RATE. NOT COUNTING HOOK UPS THAT WALK AWAY. PRESIDENT PINOCHIIO PANTS ONLY HAS ONE WIFE AND A STABLE STABLE.
PLEASE DON’T GIVE ME AL GORE’S MASSAGE OR MAKE ME TAKE THE JOHN EDWARDS LOYALTY OATH IN SICKNESS.

WHEN I SEE THE COMMUNIST PRESS STICK A MIKE IN A CANDIDATES FACE AND ASK SO ARE YOU DROPPING OUT? I FLASH BACK TO THE SAME MIKE BEING THRUST IN A MOTHER’S FACE
WHO JUST FOUND OUT THAT HER SON WAS ONE OF 22 NAVY SEALS FROM TEAM SIX KILLED IN AN AMBUSH UNDER OBAMA WHO TAKES NO CREDIT. THE QUESTION ASKED IS SO HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT THE WAR NOW?

GINGRICH SAID LAST NIGHT HE HAS THREE OPPONENTS. OBAMA THE ROYAL REPUPPIES AND THE MEDIA. HE WILL BEAT THEM ALL. NOT WITH PAC MONEY OR CHAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS BUT WITH THE PEOPLE WHO DON’T COUNT AND NEVER GET LISTENED TO. THE SIXTY MILLION WHO NO LONGER VOTE BECAUSE THEY FEEL WHAT’S THE USE?

IN CONCLUSION LET ME EMPHASIZE ROMNEY CANNOT BEAT OBAMA. HE WILL GIVE YOU ANOTHER MCCAIN VICTORY. I BELIEVE BEFORE GINGRICH WAS A CANDIDATE HIS CREDIT LINE AT TIFFANY’S WAS TRUMPETED IN THE MEDIA. WAS THAT BY ACCIDENT? THE DAY GINGRICH ANNOUNCED HIS CANDIDACY FOR THE OFFICE HIS CAMPAIGN STAFF QUIT ACCUSING HIM OF CRUISING. WHERE ARE THEY NOW? DID MONEY/FAVORS CHANGE HANDS?

IF YOU WANT THE BEST PRESIDENT FOR THE COUNTRY DO NOT TRUST EITHER PARTY OR THE MEDIA. GO WITH YOUR GUT. AT LEAST IT WILL BE YOUR CALL NOT THEIRS.

If you are serious in your desire to have people actually read your post, hit that caps lock key & try again. All caps is deemed shouting. Last time I checked this forum, no one was deaf or standing across the street.

Remember, Mitt and the republican establishment started this food fight in Iowa when Newt was doing well. Now the country club republican establishment is supporting mitt fully, because they really DO NOT want to reform anything, The status quo is too much to their advantage. I am not really a fan of mitt, but I still think he probably would have won the primary without resorting to vicious attacks against Newt, but he and the establishment wanted to put conservatives and tea party folks in their place. A little smack down for them daring to vote for people not hand picked by them in the last election.

I was glad to see you point out the supposedly “fair and balanced” fox news. watching them lately, I keep waiting to hear Brit Hume say he got a “thrill up his leg” when he hears mitt speak, or remark on the crease in his pants.

Im not sure who would have won the primary without the bombs being thrown, as I stated earlier, I suspect it would have been mitt. That wouldnt have made me happy, but I would have voted Newt or Santorum in the primary and whoever won the primary in the November election.

Now I’m not even sure I will vote in November, at least in the presidential election. I didnt vote for president in the last election either. mccain is worthless. I know, he is my senator here in Az.

We need a third party. we have the democrats, the republicans who are really just democrat lite. How about a true reform minded true conservative party? I dont care if it splits the vote and puts more democrats in office at first, not much difference between them and “democrat lite” anyway.

Republicans truely take conservatives for granted, just as democrats take blacks for granted. Its time to tell the establishment that they are not our masters. send them a message. VOTE FOR ANYBODY BUT MITT! even if you right in yourself or mickey mouse for that matter.

Don’t be too hard on Fox. Brit Hume has always been an establishment guy. Same for Chris Wallace. O’Reilly blows with the wind…he has a populist streak. Greta is a centrist. Hannity is so pro-Newt that I think he is going to cry sometimes. Most of the other personalities are center right, but they have some libertarians as well.

Fox is still far better than the TV alternatives.

The real disappointments in theis cycle are Coulter, Steyn and many bloggers. Certainly, it must be possible to be for Romney without being a shill, and to be against Newt without being a smear merchant. But so few are. Other than Rush and Hannity, there aren’t many who have been fair. Hannity has actually been the model this time, because he has bent over backwards to be fair despite his obvious affection for Newt. Conservatives should reward Sean for it.

Once upon a time I thought Ann Coulter was entertaining. Maybe even smart. Now she is just smarmy – condescending – sarcastic -self righteous annoying and when she enters left I hit the remote to the Military Channel, wait 6 minutes and flip back to Sean or whoever.. Coulter dislikes everybody. She doesn’t need a reason.

I enjoyed your article. I am sure you speak for many. I too am a soft Newt Gingrich supporter, though Newt far from my choice of real candidate. But your expectations and many here of the Tea Party are unreasonable. Rome was not built in an a day. Don’t let the successes of 2010 become the new expectation, because that expectation would then become unreasonable.

Being conservative by definition also means we must be pragmatic. Unlike you, I was there when Ronald Reagan led the Conservative movement into the promised land. Ronald Reagan could not win the Republican nomination in 1976. Our time will once again come. Conservative idea of limited government is the only path to prosperity. Our candidates either chose not to run, or are not ready to run.

If Mitt Romney should win the nomination, then anybody that truly wants the best of this country should do everything in their power to make sure Mitt Romney wins.

This crap that Mitt Romney is somehow the mirror image of Barack Obama or John McCain is pure bunk. Mitt Romney may have many shortcomings. But Mitt Romney is infinitely more qualified to be President than Barack Obama, and infinitely more intelligent than John McCain. With Mitt Romney, we have a chance for our voice to be heard, because Mitt needs us to win. We have the power to force our issues to be addressed, even with the establishment in place.

With Barack Obama as President and his fawning, sycophantic media propagating the vicious lies and rank propaganda, we will have no voice, no choice, and most importantly no hope.

Sorry Tex, your end justifies the means argument in this case is full of holes. The establishment is much more entrenched at this time than it was during the Reagan era. The line is also much more blurred between the democrat and the democrat lite (aka republican) establishments. The masters of both parties have too much to lose to allow any true reformers to be elected, that is why the tea parties voice is being squelched by the onslaught of establishment money and megaphones favoring mitt.

While mitt may be SLIGHTLY better than obama and would waste taxpayer dollars in a way I prefer to the way barry o would waste them, they will still be wasted and no true changes will be made. mitt will not gut RomBama care, wont reform the tax code, wont fix the entitlement society. All of these things give the establishment money and power, so they wont be changed.

Another result of mitt being able to buy the nomination with establishment monies and crushing the voice of conservatives in the party is that it will also destroy the enthusiasm of the conservative voter. Ho Hum a choice of obama or obama lite. While mitts establishment cash has been able to bury the other candidates money, there is no way he will compete with obamas establishment money.

That being said, we will have a weak candidate that bought the primary with establishment payola, that will be beholding to the establishment. Much of that same establishment will then bankroll obama to defeat romney.

Without consevative zeal and enthusiasm for the republican candidate we will have malaise, and another and probably another four years of barrys socialism, if mitt would some how pull off a win then it would be four years of socialism lite with no substantive changes is D.C.

We need to stand up against the establishment, who believe we are their puppets who will do whatever we are told. At this point I would suggest voting for anybody other than mittens. Our best hope to poke the establishment in the eye is a brokered convention.

Baloney. I’m as conservative as they come and there is no way in hell Mitt Romney is Obama lite. And if you and millions of others are too naive to understand that and choose to ‘sit it out’, or vote 3rd party, or cry about the establishment, or will wait until Ronald Reagan reincarnated, then we deserve another four years of Obama and we deserve to fold tent. I’ll pick my fights with the Republican establishment, future date. Anybody but Obama.

I’ve got my beef with the Karl Rove’s of the world, but if I have to pick and choose between Karl Rove and Nancy Pelosi, the moral clarity of which is better for America becomes quite clear.

If you call yourself Republican, Independent, Whig, Libertarian, Constitutionalist, etc…and can’t muster the energy to vote Obama out, you’re not only willfully confused, you will find yourself in far worse shape in four years than you find yourself today with Barack Obama once again as President, this time running without fear of reelection. There is nothing about Romney that terrifying that would match four more years of $6 trillion in debt and zero to show for it.

You think Obama is a statist now? Wait until he wins reelection because a bunch of chumps didn’t get their ideal candidate and couldn’t get enthused enough to vote. 2008 all over again.

I’m a Christian conservative that is tired of other Christians/Conservatives whining because Mitt Romney didn’t thank them enough for bringing colored tooth picks to the church buffet, or Romney is suspect because he’s Mormon, or Romneycare, or Romney is a closet liberal, or a whole host of other reasons.

Barack Obama is the sorriest excuse for President America has ever had. Worse, Barack Obama is a nasty piece of work. And though I wouldn’t vote for Romney in the primaries, I’ll guarantee you if Romney is the nominee, I’ll do everything in my power to see that Romney gets elected.

The difference between Barack Obama and any Republican nominee couldn’t be clearer.

barry o will probably win the election if mitt is the republican candidate. Republicans will not lose the house and will possibly gain seats in the senate.
I would rather have nothing done with a stalemate between executive and legislative branches divided than have mitt and his left leaning political ideals which will be obama lite, especially with establishment republicans in the legislature to back his quasi socialim, wanting only the power to enrich themslves and their masters and hang on to the fiefdoms they now occupy. mitt is a status quo candidate at best. I repeat, vote for anybody other than mitt so he does NOT get the required delegates to become the nominee.

I reject your characterization of naievte on those of us who do not want an obama lite establishment candidate. Remember Bush, an establishment candidate who did nothing to reform, started the bailouts giving the demoncrats cover to continue so called stimulus spending.

I return the charge that those of you willing to settle for the candidate dictated to you by political elites and believe anything will change are truely the ones being naive

Thanks for your comments. Disappointed, however, that the emails I get from Tea Party sources are basically fund-raising appeals. Disappointed the Tea Party sources have yet to discover the relevance of the first half of Federalist No. 57.

btw — hoping that a courageous conservative will yet appear. Romney is, I expect, the candidate of the limousine liberals, who are cousins to the better-known limousine liberals. Nominate Romney and see the worst presidential showing since McGovern.

Give Santorum some consideration. Sure, he is another big government guy but at least:
- he is a constitutional conservative
- he totally opposes obamacare
- he opposed TARP
- he is the most conservative socially
- he has improved as a candidate and may now be better than any started out being
- he isn’t a smear merchant
- he can talk about conservative principle without stifling a laugh

He doesn’t have Newt’s experience at overturning the Ruling Class, and frankly, I don’t think Rick has that in him, but in most other respects he is a good choice.

You know figuring all the years Gov Romney has served first in the LDS Church, without any pay at all, it comes to 17 1/2 years. During those years he dealt with people, some living on the edge and tried to help them. 2 to 2 1/2 years he lived in very basic apartments, in France. My son had a plastic basin and that was his washing machine. I’m pretty sure Romney didn’t have it any better. For a couple of months at the end of his mission he was an assistant to the Mission President and lived in the Mission Home (just as all missionaries do who become the MP assistant) and of course that was much better. Then as gov of Mass, I have been told that he took no pay. As CEO of the Olympics he also served for no pay. So I guess you could add 6 to 8 years of more service. When you compare that to the dishonest dealings of our legislators and the inside trading they have done to enrich themselves while in office, he presents a completely different picture.

So quit saying he doesn’t know how the common man lives. He has seen it and has helped. The amount he gives to charity and to his church is unmatched by any of the candidates or the man in the white house.
He has raised a good family, has loved and been loved by his wife for all the years they have been married. There is no scandal around his name!
We could do a heck of a lot worse and it’s hard to see how we can do better.

I copied this from another site and don’t have the author’s permission to put his name on it, so just to say I agree and I didn’t write it.

Mitt Romney did not forcibly take one dollar from me or anyone else in making his income and wealth. I am sure he is also paying more in taxes than the value of government services he is getting.

He went to college and has two advanced degrees. Most top 1 percenters have college degrees and many have graduate degrees, as opposed to most of the bottom 1 percenters who do not have college or high school degrees. He worked in a very competitive field at a job where the hours are long, no stopping at 40 hour workweeks in consulting, no overtime pay and no guaranteed weekends and holidays off, and the work and bosses are very demanding.

He is paying his legal amount of taxes.

He is what American opportunity is all about; get educated, learn skills, work hard, excel in a competitive industry, make money.

Am I jealous? Yes, somewhat.

Do I wish I had his income or wealth? Yes.

Is his money invested and helping our economy grow? Yes.

Nothing he does or has done has made the rest of us poor.

Our politicians and their hands in the til, our failed education policy and government run educational system, our overly generous benefits for union and government workers, our government regulations that stifle entrepreneurship and business formations and the lack of skills, motivation, discipline and drive in many of today’s workers have made many of us poorer than we ought to be

President Obama and many of the 99 percenters have an attitude that they are entitled and that society owes them something. Nobody automatically owes anybody anything.

Nothing done by Romney or in the way he made his money justifies the government, you or me taking more of his wealth or income than he already legally pays.

The government will waste the extra money on a failed education system, on more generous government worker benefits, on political paybacks disguised as subsidies, on incentives not to work, etc.

Jealousy and self-entitlement are not reasons to raise Romney’s or any other wealthy person’s taxes.

the Newt apologists are out today along with a report that Mitt’s PAC outspent Newt’s by about 3-2, not 1,000-1 or some other outlandish ratio. Newt spent his time in FL whining and he was not able to have Wolf Blitzer toss him a John King moment. At times, it is worth remembering that Newt was ousted as Speaker BY REPUBLICANS. He is the right’s version of Obama – the guy who thinks he is just so much smarter than anyone else that his ideas cannot be questioned.

One area where he deserves credit is for running. The airwaves are full of hang-ringing conservatives pining for some shining knight. These are the folks who tried to foist Perry on us, or who pine for the likes of Palin or Daniels. The people in it are the people in it; unless you prefer four more years of Obama, quit crying, cast your vote, and support whomever wins the nomination. But stop with the racial bigotry disguised as political insight; people like the author dislike Romney because he is a Mormon. And they are usually the first to complain about intolerance from the left.

You all claim the elites in the republican party are for Romney. Well, did you ever think they were around when Newt was at his most aggresive? They know how he blew and that he was having an affair even when he was going after Clinton for his affair. He was not a pleasant man to deal with – knowing he was so much smarter than the average person. Does that sound like someone in the white house now? You bet, all those professors advising, the tilt of his head, he can’t express a coherent thought without his tele prompters (OK, I know that isn’t Newt’s problem) but we will loose big time with Newt and the Indies.
I have friends who are blue dogs and would vote for Mitt, but not for Newt!

I like Newt, but the one thing he stands for the most is himself. He totally disappointed by getting personal, by getting away from the message and turning to personal vendetta. If I could say something to him, it would be this: this election is not about him or Mitt, but about ideas. And by his actions Newt proved that to him “himself” is more important than the ideas. Had he continued his campaign in a way of presenting ideas and contrasting them to Obama’s failed policies, he would have won. Primaries are exercise in discipline and Newt failed miserably. He just does not get it. It is not personal. But to him it is and that, in my mind, disqualifies him.

Now for my comment. This was a poorly written article by a person who has bought into the Liberal lie that spending the most money on a campaign is by definition an evil act. If Gingrich had won this primary it would have been little Newt slaying the dragon. If little Newt were more popular among his own contemporaries, he would have had plenty of campaign money and would have spent whatever he could to win. And if he won, money would not be the issue, I’m sure. I want a candidate who can take the fight to the Democrats, and if that guy can raise a lot of money for his effort, the better his chances will be. You can’t go to a gunfight holding a knife(notice I have made no references to politically sensitive targets or cross hairs). This was demonstrated in Florida last night. I call my opinion.

So what’s with Tea Party people turning into lefties? Attacking Romney for being a capitalist, now attacking him for exercising his right of free speech by buying campaign ads? You sound like like a liberal.

Not to mention, supporting a progressive like Newt in the first place.

Let’s see, Romney ran 130 positive ads and Gingrich only ran 100 positive ads. Aren’t numbers fun and meaningful, especially when we mangle them? I don’t buy into your numbers and I don’t care whether you use them to argue your point. You have been trashing Romney for a month now and your boy lost big time on Tuesday night. Now your boy waits until Santorum and Paul have given up the state for lost and until he has lost the primary, to try to challenge the rules of the contest. Sheesh, that is real character. I am not saying your boy is done, but I am saying that I certainly hope so.

Newt could have won had he stayed positive. Newt could have won had he remembered that his problem is not Romney, it is the man in the White House.

I have serious reservations about Newt as President, based on this sort of behavior. He’s too easily distracted, and too easily angered. He’s a great, but flawed man with great, but sometimes flawed ideas. Still, I’d gladly take any of the candidates over the incumbent.